JUDGMENT- N.J. PANDYA, J.:---This reference is made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in respect of Notice of Motion No. 3254 of 1999 in Suit No. 5885 of 1999. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/wife against the defendant/husband seeking maintenance and expenses for herself and her children. The aforesaid Notice of Motion is for interim maintenance. The suit is filed in this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.

2. An occasion arose for the learned Single Judge to make this Reference because on behalf of the defendant/husband, the plea of want of jurisdiction was taken. This plea was raised on the basis of section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It is an admitted position that so far as the suit for maintenance is concerned, it is covered by the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, the Court, as contemplated by the said Act, will be the one to hear the same.

3.Relying upon the Clause XII of the Letters Patent, according to the plaintiff, when the defendant is within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, the jurisdiction under Clause XII of the Letters Patent cannot be ousted because of the said Family Courts Act.

4.The plea with regard to the Family Court is raised on the basis of the provisions of section 2(e) along with section 8 of the said Act. Exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court will also have to be considered. Section 2(e) reads as under:

"2(e) all other words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code."

Relevant portion of section 8 reads as under :

"8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings.---

(a) no District Court or any Subordinate Civil Court referred to in sub-section (7) shall in relation to such area have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section;"

5.Reference to District Court or any Subordinate Civil Court may in the aforesaid portion of the said section 8 will therefore have to be understood with reference to the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 2(4) of the Code reads as under:

"2(4) district means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction (hereinafter called a "District Court") and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court."

6.The matter would have been very simple before the learned Single Judge on the basis of the aforesaid statutory material. He could have very easily rested the controversy. However, he was faced with the Division Bench of this Court taking a view that inspite of the aforesaid definition in the Code and the said provisions of section 7 of the Family Courts Act, the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is not ousted. This judgment is directly under the Family Courts Act. Had there been only the judgment, the learned Single Judge was bound by it and would have followed the same.

7.However, he was facing a situation where the Supreme Court having interpreted the said definition as contained in the Code and after considering the same held that the High Court exercising its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction will be a District Court. No doubt, this has been held with reference to the provisions of section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with section 2(e) of the said Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

8.By virtue of section 2(e) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the expression "District Court" was given the same meaning as assigned to it in the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the learned Single Judge was faced with a situation that with reference to the aforesaid definition clause of Code while dealing with section 2(e) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, the learned Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had come to a conclusion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document